The NY Slimes has made a sudden baby step towards the center .After years of cultivating a readership of the hard core left ,they have decided to introduce a little balance by hiring William Kristol to write a weekly column in the op-ed section of the paper.

This move has not been taken kindly by some. Jane Smiley ;a long time contributor to the paper penned a scathing denouncement of the Kristol hiring ,and says she will no longer associate herself with the Slimes.

AlterNet: Jane Smiley: Bill Kristol in the NY Times Means I'm Done with the Paper (http://www.alternet.org/story/72747)


I cannot imagine why the Times has hired Kristol. Kristol is not merely some rightwing loose cannon like David Brooks or even William Safire, and his hiring by the Times is not a free-speech issue. Kristol has plenty of opportunities to speak, and if he didn't he could blog, like the rest of us. Kristol is a war-monger and a hate-monger, and his lies have been exposed over and over in the last four years. If you think that the Iraq War is a crime, as I do, it is bad enough that he was one of the primary cheerleaders for it, even after every single one of the reasons that the Cheney/Bush/right wing gave for the attack was exposed. But he is worse than that. Until the NIE report, he was actively advocating bombing Iran, preferably with nuclear weapons, even though the civilians in Iran who would be bombed have nothing at all to do with whatever the Iranian government is doing, or as it turns out, not doing to develop nuclear weapons. In Iraq alone, Kristol has the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands. He is unrepentant and eager for more...

Why would the Times hire such a person? Stockholm Syndrome? Some kind if inside-the-beltway joke? An attempt to lure that bloc of American newspaper readers who listen to Rush Limbaugh?

Yeah ;if David Brooks and William Safire are "loose cannons" in her mind then I can see why she would think Kristol is fringe and that the Slimes is actually an instrument of the neo-con corporate America machine (tin-foil hat please).


So why is the Slimes hiring him ? Is it an attempt to be more "fair and balanced " ?

Hmmm.. fair and balanced... do you think it possible that with Rupert Murdoch's purchase of the Wall Street Journal ,and his move to make it a daily publication that competes with the Slimes,that they realize they have to attract a more diverse readership and advertisers to remain competitive ?

It isn't uncommon for the Jane Smiley's of the left to want to silence and censor their opposition; she would never understand the necessity of meeting the challenge of a competitor in business.

Hello tom:

Yeah, he's going to play the Alan Combs role - dufus.

excon

excon, you shouldn't be so uncharitable this soon after Christmas.

Tom, the Times is definitely out for readership. They're trying to "pursue new, mostly affluent readers (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/business/media/01paper.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)," and I noticed a TV ad a few days ago promoting a "weekend" subscription of Friday through Sunday.

According to Smiley the Times should cater to its "liberal to moderate" audience, none of that diversity of viewpoints stuff for her. I knew when all those libs said we need to get a variety of viewpoints they never meant it. :D

Many years ago Alan Colmes was the morning person on WABC radio in NY . He was good. Yeah he does play a foil to Hannity on their show to a degree ,but it beats Olberman ;who won't even have opposing viewpoints on as guests.

The Sunday Times is good for making fire starter logs for the wood stove. I don't thnk anyone reads the Saturday Slimes. That is why they usually fill the paper with retractions. But they always reserve some bomb-shell for Tim Russert's et al to exploit on the Sunday talk shows

The NY Slimes doesn't metamorphize... they metastesize, like a cancer.

And I'm not sure what the heck is wrong with the bloggers on Smiley's page. G-d forbid there should be any opinion that differs from her own.

Geeze, she really needs to throw away the Pulitzer and get a real life. Or sell the Pulitzer and use the money to buy a clue.

Elliot

It is columns like the following that must make the Slimes readership go nuts

The Democrats' Fairy Tale - New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14kristol.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)


The Democrats' Fairy Tale
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
“Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.” Thus spoke Bill Clinton last Monday night, exasperated by Barack Obama's claim that he — unlike Hillary Clinton — had been consistently right (or wrong, depending on your point of view) on the Iraq war.

Now in fact, Obama has been pretty consistent in his opposition to the war. But Bill Clinton is right in this respect: Obama's view of the current situation in Iraq is out of touch with reality. In this, however, Obama is at one with Hillary Clinton and the entire leadership of the Democratic Party.

When President Bush announced the surge of troops in support of a new counterinsurgency strategy a year ago, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Democratic Congressional leaders predicted failure. Obama, for example, told Larry King that he didn't believe additional U.S. troops would “make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that's taking place there.” Then in April, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, asserted that “this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything.” In September, Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus that his claims of progress in Iraq required a “willing suspension of disbelief.”

The Democrats were wrong in their assessments of the surge. Attacks per week on American troops are now down about 60 percent from June. Civilian deaths are down approximately 75 percent from a year ago. December 2007 saw the second-lowest number of U.S. troops killed in action since March 2003. And according to Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of day-to-day military operations in Iraq, last month's overall number of deaths, which includes Iraqi security forces and civilian casualties as well as U.S. and coalition losses, may well have been the lowest since the war began.

Do Obama and Clinton and Reid now acknowledge that they were wrong? Are they willing to say the surge worked?

No. It's apparently impermissible for leading Democrats to acknowledge — let alone celebrate — progress in Iraq. When asked recently whether she stood behind her “willing suspension of disbelief” insult to General Petraeus, Clinton said, “That's right.”

When Obama was asked in the most recent Democratic presidential debate, “Would you have seen this kind of greater security in Iraq if we had followed your recommendations to pull the troops out last year?” he didn't directly address the question. But he volunteered that “much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar Province, Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what? — the Americans may be leaving soon. And we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shias. We should start negotiating now.”

But Sunni tribes in Anbar announced in September 2006 that they would join to fight Al Qaeda. That was two months before the Democrats won control of Congress. The Sunni tribes turned not primarily because of fear of the Shiites, but because of their horror at Al Qaeda's atrocities in Anbar. And the improvements in Anbar could never have been sustained without aggressive American military efforts — efforts that were more effective in 2007 than they had been in 2006, due in part to the addition of the surge forces.

Last year's success, in Anbar and elsewhere, was made possible by confidence among Iraqis that U.S. troops would stay and help protect them, that the U.S. would not abandon them to their enemies. Because the U.S. sent more troops instead of withdrawing — because, in other words, President Bush won his battles in 2007 with the Democratic Congress — we have been able to turn around the situation in Iraq.

And now Iraq's Parliament has passed a de-Baathification law — one of the so-called benchmarks Congress established for political reconciliation. For much of 2007, Democrats were able to deprecate the military progress and political reconciliation taking place on the ground by harping on the failure of the Iraqi government to pass the benchmark legislation. They are being deprived of even that talking point.

Yesterday, on “Meet the Press,” Hillary Clinton claimed that the Iraqis are changing their ways in part because of the Democratic candidates' “commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009.” So the Democratic Party, having proclaimed that the war is lost and having sought to withdraw U.S. troops, deserves credit for any progress that may have been achieved in Iraq.

That is truly a fairy tale. And it is driven by a refusal to admit real success because that success has been achieved under the leadership of... George W. Bush. The horror!

I think nuts is an understatement. I mean seriously, how dare they print a column by "a war-monger and a hate-monger" whose "lies have been exposed over and over" that dares challenge a Democrat to acknowledge some inconvenient truth. Have any of them commented - or been questioned by the media - on the de-Baathification benchmark yet?

That is truly a fairy tale. And it is driven by a refusal to admit real success because that success has been achieved under the leadership of... George W. Bush. The horror! - Bill KrystolHello tom:

Making headway in Iraq FIVE years after he declared victory, after the additional loss of over 3,000 Americans and countless Iraqi's, after allowing the build up Al Qaeda to pre war levels, and after single handedly destroying the American reputation around the world for fair play, is ANTHING BUT success.

What's horrible, is to believe that bunk.

Excon

Winning the war and winning the peace are two separate issues.

Update

Lol

NY slimes Public Editor Clark Hoyt has officially welcomed Bill Kristol to the Slimes

He May Be Unwelcome, but We'll Survive - New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/opinion/13pubed.html?_r=2&ex=1357966800&en=ed6cd32f70c07c4e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)


He May Be Unwelcome, but We'll Survive


Kristol would not have been my choice to join David Brooks as a second conservative voice in the mix of Times columnists, but the reaction is beyond reason. Hiring Kristol the worst idea ever? I can think of many worse. Hanging someone from a lamppost to be beaten by a mob because of his ideas? And that is from a liberal, defined by Webster as “one who is open-minded.” What have we come to?

This is a decision I would not have made. But it is not the end of the world. Now that's what I call a ringing endorsement and defense of their decision !:p :p


This is not a person I would have rewarded with a regular spot in front of arguably the most elite audience in the nation BWAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAA!! Who would've guess that elites hang rotten, traitorous pieces of filth from lamp posts for mob beatings??

What else can you expect from the arrogant left? At least they're admitting who their audience is, or think it is - or courting - as I mentioned earlier. This is the comment that got me:


But Kristol is a particularly polarizing figure in a polarized age.

And the Times is " uniter, not a divider?" :D

Kristol has always seemed intelligent. Alert, and likeable. Most on the left have a hard time with humor and smiling is difficult.

And the Times is " uniter, not a divider?" :DHello Steve:

You guys always mix up roles. It's actually the job of the Times to state its opinion. If it does its job well, in these trying times, it’s going to divide.

However, it's only reporting and giving its opinion on what the people who REALLY ARE charged with uniting or dividing us are doing.

I don't know how you guys miss that part of our shared Americana. You want to shoot the messenger, and let the bad guys off the hook.

Me? I'm a better person than you. I have never criticized Rush Limprod... Well, maybe a little. Ok, I'm no better. But, at least I don't think he should be a "uniter".

excon

I'm perfectly content with the role that Rush and the Slimes play. But the Slimes portrays itself as the unbiased paper of record (although I was encouraged by Hoyt's admission that the paper swings left and is elitist ) .

Nope I do not expect journalistic integrity from them at all .But since they have such an influence I would be negligent if I did not point out when I think they are not being fair or accurate .

I dunno how you guys miss that part of our shared Americana. You wanna shoot the messenger, and let the bad guys off the hook.

Not at all ex, everyone knows Rush, Medved, Hannity and others are partisans - they openly admit it - and it IS their job to give opinions just like the Times. The difference is simple, the Times, al-AP and co. PRETEND they aren't partisan, AND they are also charged with objectively reporting the news, which they don't do. If they'd keep their opinions on the opinion page I'd cut them some slack, but my paper seems to be filled with more analysis disguised as news than actual news.

During the course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been leveled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare.” (Thomas Jefferson )